Literature DB >> 17130371

The temporal relationship between advertising and sales of low-tar cigarettes.

Mark B Reed1, Christy M Anderson, David M Burns.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE AND HYPOTHESIS: To determine whether a temporal relationship exists between the advertising and sales of low-tar cigarettes. It was hypothesised that increases in the advertising of low-tar cigarettes would precede increases in sales for these cigarettes.
METHODS: The themes of cigarette advertisements were reviewed and coded for 20 low-tar cigarette brands advertised in 13 widely read magazines in the US between 1960 and 1996. These 20 brands represented most of the low-tar cigarette advertisements and cigarette sales from 1967 to 1996. Cigarette sales data were obtained from the 1994 Maxwell report that summarises all cigarette sales from 1925 to 1990. If the advertisement referred to the low-tar attributes of the cigarette advertised, the advertisement was coded as having a low-tar theme and was included in the analysis.
RESULTS: Five different graphical presentations of the relationship between the advertising and sales of the 20 low-tar cigarette brands showed a temporal relationship between low-tar advertising and sales for these brands. This relationship was observed for brands that introduced a low-tar alternative into an existing brand family (eg, Marlboro Light) and for new exclusively low-tar brands (eg, Carlton). Despite large increases in the advertising for the exclusively low-tar brands, sales of these brands remained low relative to sales of the low-tar alternative brands.
CONCLUSIONS: Increases in print advertising of 20 of the most popular low-tar cigarette brands were followed by increases in sales for these cigarettes. Despite increases in the advertising of exclusively low-tar brands in the mid-1970s and early 1980s, the sales of these brands never matched the sales of the low-tar alternative brands. This suggests that it may have been easier to get smokers to switch to low-tar brands within a brand family compared with entirely new low-tar brands. Over the past 30 years, the marketing of low-tar cigarettes as a healthier alternative to higher-tar cigarettes has resulted in these brands dominating the market, and may have kept concerned smokers from quitting.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17130371      PMCID: PMC2563681          DOI: 10.1136/tc.2005.015354

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Tob Control        ISSN: 0964-4563            Impact factor:   7.552


  14 in total

1.  It's time for a change: cigarette smokers deserve meaningful information about their cigarettes.

Authors:  J Wilkenfeld; J Henningfield; J Slade; D Burns; J Pinney
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-01-19       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  'Light' and 'mild' cigarettes: who smokes them? Are they being misled?

Authors:  M J Ashley; J Cohen; R Ferrence
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2001 Nov-Dec

3.  Beliefs about "Light" and "Ultra Light" cigarettes and efforts to change those beliefs: an overview of early efforts and published research.

Authors:  L T Kozlowski; J L Pillitteri
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 7.552

4.  Smokers' beliefs about "Light" and "Ultra Light" cigarettes.

Authors:  S Shiffman; J L Pillitteri; S L Burton; J M Rohay; J G Gitchell
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 7.552

5.  Exposing Mr Butts' tricks of the trade. Introduction.

Authors:  K M Cummings; R W Pollay
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 7.552

Review 6.  The dark side of marketing seemingly "Light" cigarettes: successful images and failed fact.

Authors:  R W Pollay; T Dewhirst
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 7.552

7.  Low tar, high toll.

Authors:  K E Warner; J Slade
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  Smokers are unaware of the filter vents now on most cigarettes: results of a national survey.

Authors:  L T Kozlowski; M E Goldberg; B A Yost; F M Ahern; K R Aronson; C T Sweeney
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 7.552

9.  Health impact of "reduced yield" cigarettes: a critical assessment of the epidemiological evidence.

Authors:  M J Thun; D M Burns
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 7.552

10.  Tobacco industry response to public health concern: a content analysis of cigarette ads.

Authors:  K E Warner
Journal:  Health Educ Q       Date:  1985
View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Cigarette Filter Ventilation and its Relationship to Increasing Rates of Lung Adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Min-Ae Song; Neal L Benowitz; Micah Berman; Theodore M Brasky; K Michael Cummings; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Catalin Marian; Richard O'Connor; Vaughan W Rees; Casper Woroszylo; Peter G Shields
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2017-12-01       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 2.  Surveillance methods for identifying, characterizing, and monitoring tobacco products: potential reduced exposure products as an example.

Authors:  Richard J O'Connor; K Michael Cummings; Vaughan W Rees; Gregory N Connolly; Kaila J Norton; David Sweanor; Mark Parascandola; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Peter G Shields
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.254

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.